Smith v. Eischen
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-01551
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Smith v. Eischen, Chief Judge Schiltz denied as moot Smith’s motion to file an appeal because he had already filed one.
Darrell Smith’s motion to file an appeal was denied as moot; his separately filed appeal remained docketed in the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Smith v. Eischen, Darrell Smith asked to file an appeal, which the court understood as a request to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Smith had already filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2024, and the appeal had been docketed by the Eighth Circuit.
The court explained that Smith had 60 days after judgment to file his notice of appeal because the case involved a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity. Judgment was entered on November 14, 2024, so the 60-day period had not expired.
Because Smith had already filed his notice of appeal, the motion was no longer necessary. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz therefore denied the motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-01551
- Patrick Schiltz
- Dec. 26, 2024
Background
The court considered petitioner Darrell Smith’s motion to file an appeal. The court understood the motion to be asking for more time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).
Court’s Analysis
Smith had already filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2024. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit docketed that appeal as Case No. 24-3575. The court also stated that, because the action was against a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity, Smith had 60 days after entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. Judgment had been entered on November 14, 2024, and that 60-day period had not expired.
Ruling
Because Smith had already filed a notice of appeal, the court concluded that his motion to file an appeal was no longer necessary. The court ordered that the motion to file an appeal, ECF No. 28, was DENIED AS MOOT.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.